You're right! Thanks for waking me up. I really shouldn't have said it that way. I don't know what I was thinking. I really should have said it like this:
Mona Lisa is proof of Leonardo Da Vinci. That's common sense.
The Statue of David is proof of Michelangelo. That's common sense.
Falling Water is proof of Frank Lloyd Wright. That's common sense.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is proof of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. That's common sense.
Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense.
Anyone that says differently (without some sort of solid evidence), in my opinion, is just being stubborn, or foolish, or both.
Have a nice day
29 comments
So statues, paintings, books, etc., are the same thing as a planet?
Never mind that we actually have evidence that the first were created by the people they're supposed to have been created by, from multiple sources.
Only one unreliable source for Biblical creation - the Bible
We are, so God made it so, is a huuuuge leap.
There's lots of other creation stories, and all have exactly the same amount of proof: NONE.
I or anyone else could make something up right now and no-one could disprove it.
And yet why should they? If you want to prove your belief is real you've got to have some evidence that leads to ONLY that conclusion.
Mona Lisa is proof of the Mona Lisa.
The Statue of David is proof of the Statue of David.
Falling Water is proof of Falling Water
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is proof of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn...
And the Universe is the proof that the Universe exists.
With the previous creations, there is a lot more evidence showing that the artist or author in question existed than just the artwork or book.
With the Universe, there is no other evidence of a 'Creator' other than the 'Creation' itself.
A Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Creator Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Creator Creator Creator also needs a Creator. That's common sense.
A Cr... you get the idea.
Common sense does not split an atom. Nor does it resolve your self imposed paradox.
Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense.
Anyone that says differently (without some sort of solid evidence), in my opinion, is just being stubborn, or foolish, or both.
Can you show me proof "a creator" is responsible for such creation? It's okay, I know you don't have any. XD
The Harry Potter books are proof of wizards.
'A Midsummer Night's Dream' is proof of fairies.
Kermit is proof of talking frogs.
The guy in red robes at the mall is proof of Santa Claus.
The Bible is proof of God.
Okay, now seriously: That the world exists only proofs that it came into existence once. Nothing else.
Simply reply "God" with "Big Bang". And I won't "accept the Big Bang as my personal saviour"
Carl Sagan, who was an agnostic, did better theology than this. He figured that if the universe was created like a work of art is created, there should be some sign of this fact. Called it "The Artist's Signature".
Find that, and he would have been willing to consider conversion.
"Creation is proof of the Creator. That's common sense."
Creation is proof of a creator. That could mean any creating force, such as the Big Bang, etc...
After the fundies have destroyed samuel's work, I almost want to tell them to go DIAF. BTW, this creator wouldnt happen to be, say Jesus or Jehova now would it? I hope not.....
The Mona Lisa is not per se proof of Leonardo We have the historical records to know that it was painted by him, just as we have the historical records to know that Hercule Poirot was created by Agatha Christie.
We have no historical record whatsoever that the universe was "created" in the Christian sense. All we have is a book of absurd and contradictory Bronze Age bullshit, and that is so full of blatant errors abd impossibilities that it doesn't count at all. The Bible is proof of the Bible, and absolutely nothing else.
Things, therefore god? i don't think anyone can present enough evidence to get around that..
Btw, doesn't that mean that an older universe means more evidence for god? Because there's been more time for things?
So when you have NO proof you compare that to cases of lots of proof? You have NOTHING to back up your claim, there are multiple evidences of all you mentioned.
Honestly, get a sense of scale.
daid is proof of Michelangelo. Only if you have other sources to show that
1. Mike made the david statue
2. There was a person named mike
ditto all the others. If you can not prove the named person existed independant of the work claimed then you really just have an assertion that work Y was made by X.
Actually the OP makes perfect sense in that the logic is consistent and the "Creation is proof of the Creator" statement is logically true. However the identity or nature of the creator is not mentioned, so your statement is incomplete. The term "creator" could be used to describe any combination of natural forces, with or without divine or intelligent influence.
We have watched people paint, sculpture, write and compose, but we have never watched anyone create a universe.
Even if your "logic" holds water, you have no proof that the Creator is your particular god. It might just as well have been Quetzalcoatl.
...and therefore using 'common sense', question: who created the Creator?
Anyone who doesn't have solid evidence of the existence of said 'Creator' (and no, 'opinions' based on the inadmissable in court Bible allowed, nor their own stubbornness to answer questions to the satisfaction of we Atheists; Troll/Poe/Nuts 4Life, I'm looking at you) is being a stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest & therefore inferior fundie.
Now go fuck yourself, and the fundie horse you rode in on.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.